Author
Topic: 70-200 F2.8 mark I or mark II?! (Read 33591 times)

I know this topic probably came up a bunch of times...I'm looking for a 70-200 F2.8 lens.I've looked at the tamron, sigma and the canon mark i and mark ii...but I cant decide which one!Anyone have experience with the Sigma and the Canon 70-200 mark i and mark ii that can compare the quality and image quality?!?

I have Canon EF 70-200 mm 2.8L IS II USM and really like results which can be achieved by using this lens. Before bying it i read a lot of info about I generation lens as well as third party providers. I am not professional photographer, however, based on all info that I read it seems that my current lens is the best that could be bought fot money at the moment

Well of course the mk2 is wayway better in every aspect and not just a tad. But if you're like me it's a lens I hardly ever used and therefor completely stupid to pay that price for.. However I just the other day picked up a 70-200 2.8 non-is for $350 and then it suddenly is a super bargain an totally worth to own, even if I use it no more than twice a year..

The 2.8-IS mark1 is the worst 70-200 lens Canon has ever made, it is not sharp, and I tried over 20 copies.So I have been using my non-IS version, witch is much better.Only recently I bought a mark2 version, and that is an excelent lens, but that comes at a price.The Tamron seems to be a very good lens too, not as good as the mark2, but better than the other two.I can not say for myself, because I never worked with the Tamron.

So, if money is an issue, buy the non IS, great money for value.If you want IS, buy the Tamron.If you want the best, buy the mark2.

As indicated above, the 70-200 f/2.8 II is far superior, as virtually every review out there will indicate. Significant difference in resolution quality, amongst other things (e.g. bokeh quality). Regarded as one of Canon's greatest lenses.

Yes, pricing is quite steep, and if this is an issue you should consider the 70-200 f/4L IS if the 1-stop difference is acceptable to you. The f/4L is optically superior to the f/2.8L I, and many would argue that it is not far behind the f/2.8L mark II.

Definitely the Mark II. Had the chance to compare pics taken with the IS MkI at the same location at the same time with those I had taken with the IS Mk II. Both on 7D and the IQ difference was very visible...

Having owned the 70-200/2.8 I and the 70-200/2.8 II, and used both on a 40D and 5D mk II, the difference between the two lenses is like night and day.

The mk I, when stopped down to f4 produces quite nice results. The colours and contrast are very nice, but the sharpness isn't fully there. At f2.8 and viewed at 100%, it always has a very ugly softness to it. The mk II however just nails it every time - you only gain DoF by stopping down - the sharpness is simply stunning wide open throughout the zoom range. The IS is better too. I'm unaware of any aspect of the mk I being better than mk II.

I would strongly recommend against the mk I. If you are buying it to shoot at f4 and below, save yourself money, size and weight and get the 70-200/4 IS. According to test chart shots on TDP, it's sharper than the mk I at f4, and the IS is better (4 stops vs 3 stops). It also means if you're ever shooting in Tv, it can't open up to a poor performing aperture. If you want to shoot at f2.8, there is no substitute for the mk II.